I was very impressed that Brek joined this fray, with nothing to gain whatsoever, Obviously he was motivated to post because he saw a person who has been repeated dumped on, solely for having alleged that they were treated in a certain way, and since he believes he had the same experience with the very same party, he felt compelled to write himself (and oddly, no one has challenged *HIS *version of the facts or *HIS *competence).
Now, when this person is scorned yet again, David feels compelled to make a stand as well! I no longer think this resembles Mr, Smith Goes to Washington. It is far more similar to a classic scene from another movie, seen here: *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vjqfvZVReM* (please watch it through!) Bruce On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:46 PM, David Kusumoto <[email protected]>wrote: > *How do you think any third party might adjudicate this situation David?? > do you think Heritage's offer to make a charitable donation to the charity > of Geraldine's choice actually might be fair in light of all these > circumstances and do you feel it is right for Geraldine to repeatedly and > purposefully libel Heritage on this forum without repercussions?* > > > *Rich - > > * I don't need to "guess" how a third party might "adjudicate" this. To > do so in Grey's direction would be prejudicial because he is a friend, > therefore, my views cannot be realistically nor legally be accepted as > "objective" nor "impartial." My opinion does not matter. But since you > asked, I think Geraldine's chances would improve if she can prove > class-action negligence on behalf of more consignors like herself. This is > the method, coincidentally, that a person is also more likely to have > success garnering media coverage - which I maintain is way more damaging to > a company's long-term reputation and ability to retain market share - than > a lawsuit involving monetary damages. If she took this to the media with > others in tow, she could have fun with it even if she loses. > > * Do I think Heritage's offer is fair? It depends if it were you, not > Geraldine, faced with this offer - and if you yourself thought it was > fair. It's not for anyone to judge what's fair to you. Your > next-door-neighbor who's not in the hobby might ask, however, why would an > offer be extended in the absence of an infraction? We know the tactical > reasons why legal settlements are reached - but such reasons remain fuzzy > to the outside world. > > * Do I think it is right for Geraldine to "repeatedly and purposely > libel" Heritage without repercussions? These are YOUR words and YOUR > opinion that she has committed libel - without you yourself physically > being in Dallas nor at the location of Geraldine's home where the > aforementioned dispute began. Your litmus test for libel is different from > mine. Grey is arguably a "public figure" who is published routinely in > articles circulated in the hobby. Therefore, a libel judgement (written) > vs. a slander judgment (spoken) against a "public figure" - requires, 1) > truth as determined by a third party, and 2) malicious execution with > intent to harm from a person who DOES NOT view himself/herself, a) as being > aggrieved in some way, nor, b) as suffering a material loss. To prove > malice in a libel case involving a public figure requires doing harm just > for the sake of doing harm - with NO other reason such as seeking a > material remedy. Internet "extortion" is just as hard to prove as libel > involving a public figure. This "opinion" comes from a person (me) - who > has been threatened with libel and slander lawsuits more than 30 times > during my news career - and who has never been successfully taken to court > nor bled to death in legal fees. You've seen the stuff I write. I > sometimes take things pretty far before I stop short to prevent getting > hung by my own leash. > > * As to repercussions - the repercussions will be evident if Heritage > chooses to file a counter-claim against Geraldine for libel on a published > public forum. Everyone is responsible for his or her own words, as is > stated on the disclaimer at the bottom of every PUBLIC MoPo post. If her > attorneys believe she is writing libelous material, she might stop. > Because she hasn't, I gather she's been told "it's OK." > > * **As to how this has unfolded at MoPo - it is my personal view that > Geraldine should just post and people who are truly Heritage's friends > should shut up. If you're not Heritage's friend - or if you don't know its > people in person - post away. There are tactical reasons why Heritage > hasn't posted much about this at MoPo. I've personally talked to Heritage > about this. Quite candidly, public rebuttals from third parties to > Geraldine's posts aren't doing the people in Dallas any favors. Most posts > are just character testimonials and/or third-party opinions about > Geraldine's actions vs. Heritage's. Note that I have NOT publicly > commented on Heritage's behalf - point-by-point to Geraldine's charges as a > few people, in my view, so ridiculously have. You may talk about this > publicly all you want, but you should carefully weigh its impact on your > own reputation as dealers (as it appears it is mostly dealers rushing to > Heritage's defense) - as well as its impact on the squabbling parties > involved. > > * In David vs. Goliath battles, I never dismiss the possibility that the > little guy, despite everything - may still win. In the "disproportional" > court of opinion at MoPo - it appears Geraldine is wrong and Heritage is > right. But in the court of "public" opinion OUTSIDE of MoPo, I wouldn't be > surprised if consumers would FEEL THE OPPOSITE, regardless of the facts. > At the end of the day, favorable testimonials from dealers about other > dealers - DON'T MATTER TO CONSUMERS - as much as favorable testimonials > from RETAIL CUSTOMERS about those same dealers. Whether we're talking > about posters, refrigerators or used cars, this principle rarely changes > and is practically etched in stone. - d. * > > ------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:50:41 -0700 > From: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Rudy Franchi, Heritage, no Inventory > To: [email protected] > > David > > I think you have mis-characterized what is going on this thread somewhat > > No one has accused Geraldine of anything, or at least I certainly haven't. > Why has anyone other than Grey commented? well that's simple.. Geraldine > has posted to a public forum with many members. I have seen both collectors > and dealers comment and Grey himself commented to one of her earlier posts. > Most posts have been pretty fair to both sides. I.E. none of us can know if > Geraldine did or did not send the posters she declares are missing, or if > she mistakenly stating that she has, not knowing these posters will be > found at a later date in their home. > > In any case, her claim has a hard way to go. She stated pretty simply she > got $11,000 for some poster that she did not know that Charlie sent or she > sent or who knows who sent (as some much of her posts are somewhat > confusing), so that says to me that she really isn't sure on any level what > was sent as she thinks she sent some valuable poster, but had no idea she > had actually sent a different and more valuable poster. > > She is also here, on MoPo, specifically for the purpose it seems of > disparaging Rudy & Heritage. Her posts are not benign by any stretch of the > imagination and and it has been getting repeated continually for several > weeks. I think it's only natural that quite a few people will chime in on > such posts as they are designed to elicit a response from people. > > My suggestion to Geraldine would be that if she feels she has enough proof > to show she did indeed send these posters, that she go to the forum that > would produce a judgement in her favor: the courts system, or via direct > negotiation with Heritage and that posting her problem here to MoPo would > therefore not be the correct forum for her dispute. However I do not agree > with some other people that she should not post on MoPo her dispute. She > certainly can, but she will get a response from someone of course. > > Of course, we actually already know that she has negotiated with Heritage > on the issue, Heritage disputes her claim, but offered to give to the > charity of her choice the proposed value of these posters. We know all this > not because Grey posted it, but because Geraldine posted it. None the less, > it is apparent that Geraldine feels that she and not some charity should > get the money for these posters that she says she sent, are not present on > any inventory, and that Heritage says they did not receive them and it > feels unseemly to them to pay her thousands of dollars for posters they > don't believe she sent them. > > How do you think any third party might adjudicate this situation David?? > do you think Heritage's offer to make a charitable donation to the charity > of Geraldine's choice actually might be fair in light of all these > circumstances and do you feel it is right for Geraldine to repeatedly and > purposefully libel Heritage on this forum without repercussions? > > ------------------------------ > * > Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:42:52 -0700 > From: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Rudy Franchi, Heritage, no Inventory > To: [email protected] > * > > *This seems like "Mr. Smith Goes to > Washington", with the entire "machine" lined up against her. Too bad > this isn't a movie. It sounds like she will have to give up and take > her losses (if indeed she had any). You can't fight the "machine".* > > *My goodness**, no kidding. I wish people would stop "extrapolating the > motives of" and/or "speaking on behalf of" Heritage. If it wants, it can > chime in. All of these "testimonials" are sickening. I think Grey is a > fine guy, but it's wild to read the genuflecting posts which give Heritage > all the benefit of the doubt while casting Geraldine as a senile loon. On > one hand people stop short of calling her a liar, but regardless of any > errors she may have made (and it appears she has made a few) - it's also > clear that a WAY-too-disproportionate number of "rebuking' responses have > come dealers - with only a few posts from collectors like Carlos, who has > no dog in this race, yet who applauds the discussion of things that > sometimes go awry in the hobby. If you are tired of this thread and/or > want it to die on its own, stop responding. But some of you guys are > unreal. (And geez, it's always the alpha-males who feel compelled to > defend, rationalize or process the thoughts and actions of a guy most of us > like - while simultaneously doing the same in an almost entirely adverse > way against an "outsider." The ratio of dealers posting their thoughts > about consumer-related problems - feels like a rigged card deck that's > stacked 10-to-1 against collectors. Lurkers can't feel good about the way > this has played out on MoPo. And I'd bet more than a few who've quietly > read some of the posts thus far - are taking mental notes of who they will > buy, sell or consign their very valuable collections in the future. -d. > * > -----Original Message----- > Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:10:29 -0500 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Rudy Franchi, Heritage, no Inventory > To: [email protected] > > I guess I just come at this from a different perspective, having never > been in court or been sued or been arrested. I would not pay someone > for something I did not do, but I guess that is just me. > > On the other hand, if Geraldine is simply lying, WHY is she doing so? > What is she gaining by this? This seems like "Mr. Smith Goes to > Washigton", with the entire "machine" lined up against her. Too bad > this isn't a movie. It sounds like she will have to give up and take > her losses (if indeed she had any). You can't fight the "machine". > > Bruce > > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ How > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: > [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF > MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > > -- Bruce Hershenson and the other 26 members of the eMoviePoster.com team P.O. Box 874 West Plains, MO 65775 Phone: 417-256-9616 (hours: Mon-Fri 9 to 5 except from 12 to 1 when we take lunch) our site <http://www.emovieposter.com/> our auctions <http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/all.html> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
